There
are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that
may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The
revolution is behind them.
Garet
Garrett, “The Revolution Was”
“We are extremely concerned about recent developments in
this country which have imposed new and dangerous burdens on our local police,”frets the “Statement of Principles” of the Support Your
Local Police Committee (SYLP). “Harassment and outright attacks against the
police, in many instances organized and controlled by subversives, criminals,
and illegal aliens, have increased alarmingly. Court decisions have placed
unreasonable restrictions on the forces of law and order, while freeing many
criminals from prison and imposing only the mildest of sentences on others. And
far too many politicians have bowed to the disruptive tactics and outright threats
of organized pressure groups.”
Does that paragraph even remotely describe the situation we
confront today? The public is in pervasive danger not because the police have
been shackled, but because they have been unleashed. We’re dealing with a
crisis of impunity, not one of impotence.
According to the SYLP, there is nothing wrong with
contemporary law enforcement that cannot be remedied by keeping the police
above accountability. This is the material meaning of the slogan, “Support your
local police – and keep them independent!” The group properly emphasizes the
dangers of federal subsidy and control of local police agencies, yet its
six-point agenda focuses entirely on augmenting the privileges and immunities that
have abetted criminal misconduct and protected abusive cops from personal
liability.
The SYLP’s model “Statement of Principles” urges “all
responsible citizens” to do the following:
*Support our local police in the performance of their
duties;
*Oppose all harassment or interference with law enforcement
personnel as they carry out their assigned tasks;
*Reject any “civilian review boards” or other outside “supervision”
of our police;
*Prohibit the creation of any national police force, or any
other centralized authority, which would replace and control our local police;
*Oppose any and all efforts to subsidize, regionalize, or
federalize our local police, since any loss of their independence from outside
controls will inevitably lead to a loss of our protection and safety as well;
*Accept our responsibilities to our local police … defend
them against unjust attacks, make them proud and secure in their vital
profession, and to offer them our support in word and deed wherever possible.
Every element in this positivist prescription for “responsible
citizenship” could be translated and used – without further alteration -- in
defense of local police in Cuba, China, Russia, Iran, or any other country
whose government was founded on the premise that citizens have “responsibilities”
to their rulers, rather than the reverse.
“We believe that the first and most solemn responsibility of
all public officials is to protect the lives and property of the citizens of [their]
community,” asserts the SYLP “Start-up Manual.” “Our local police, who have
been entrusted with this fundamental obligation, have fulfilled their duties
admirably, justly earning a reputation as `the thin blue line’ protecting the
law-abiding citizen from the lawbreaker.”
This statement is an elaborate and demonstrable falsehood. Police
officers have no enforceable legal duty to protect “the law-abiding citizen
from the lawbreaker.” Some of them occasionally do provide that service as a
matter of individual decency and conscience, but they are not required to do
so.
A police officer who fails to aid a citizen threatened by criminal
violence can invoke the sacred cause of “officer safety” and suffer no
repercussions, even if the citizen is severely injured or even killed as a
result of that inaction. New York City resident Joe Lozito can testify that
this is the case.
Lozito was severely wounded by a knife-wielding murderer in a
subway car while a gallant member of the NYPD cowered behind a protective partition.
After Lozito had subdued the assailant, the officer emerged
and took him into custody, thereby qualifying for a commendation and earning
plaudits in the press for his “heroism.” When Lozito sought redress from
the city, he
was told that the police did not have an enforceable duty to protect him, even
when he was being hacked to death just feet away from an armed NYPD officer.
The “thin blue line” of public protection is a pernicious
myth. The “Blue Wall of Silence” protecting corrupt and abusive cops is an
abundantly demonstrated reality. The Support Your Local Police manual demands that the
public buy into the deadly myth, and ignore the even deadlier reality.
Nowhere in the SYLP’s “Start-up Manual” is there an
acknowledgment of the fact that police are more frequently a threat to the
persons and property of citizens than
a protection for them – or even that police could be such a threat. The document focuses obsessively on potential
threats to what it calls the “independence” of the police – which in substance
means the possibility that they would have to answer to the public they
supposedly protect, rather than the political class they actually serve.
The “local” police are geographically proximate, but they
are not locally accountable – and the program presented in the SYLP manual
would exacerbate this state of affairs.
SYLP volunteers are instructed to “investigate the current
status of federal grants and aid to your local police along with the rules and
regulations attached to that aid…. Find out how much assistance, equipment or
financial aid, comes from outside or federal sources. What are the requirements
associated with receiving that assistance? How much say or control does the
federal government have over the affairs of your local police department? To
what extent is the federal government cooperating and coordinating with your
local police? What are the involved federal agencies, the NSA, FBI, CIA, Department
of Justice, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, etc.?”
Once this information has been collected, continues the
manual, it should be “put to good use” in a media campaign “identifying the
issue as a local problem.” This is a sound and worthwhile suggestion that
abruptly dead-ends against the categorical imperative of supporting the “local”
police even after they have become fully
federalized, militarized, and an active menace to the public:
“The local police are not your enemy. Your committee is not
here to attack them, blame them for violating the Constitution or your civil
liberties because they are enforcing a measure of the PATRIOT Act or conducting
a joint Federal and State anti-terror drill. These are federal issues, which
the local police in some cases may have already have [sic] little to no say if
they are to continue receiving their additional Homeland Security funds, new
equipment and weaponry.”
How can the militarization of the police be a “local problem”
– but any attempt to reverse that situation be dismissed as a “federal issue”?
Exposing and condemning systematic violations of the Constitution and abuses of
civil liberties by police do not constitute an “attack” on the police, but an
exercise of what most Americans would regard as conscientious citizenship. Where
the “local” police have become an unambiguous threat to the population, shouldn’t
people do everything they can to prevent them from “receiving … additional
Homeland Security funds, new equipment, and weaponry”?
In practice, the “support your local police” program will
consolidate federal control over police agencies while keeping them “independent”
of citizen oversight. While the SYLP manual demands unstinting loyalty toward
the police, it preaches unqualified opposition to “civilian review boards,”
which are depicted as a part of a decades-old Communist plot to subvert law
enforcement.
No, I’m not kidding: From the SYLP perspective, anybody who
wants to undermine the “independence” – that is, the often murderous impunity –
of police is supposedly doing the Kremlin’s bidding, nearly a quarter-century
after the Hammer and Sickle was furled and the Soviet Union was tardily
consigned to well-deserved oblivion.
Civilian oversight of the military is a rudimentary
constitutional principle. For some reason, however, the concept of “civilian”
oversight of police departments – which are supposedly civilian agencies
themselves – is treated as an unpublished footnote to the Communist Manifesto.
This idea apparently
began with the late Cleon Skousen, who was a Special Agent in Hoover’s FBI
before becoming Chief of Police in Salt Lake City.
Decades ago, Skousen reported that Dr. Bella Dodd, a defector from the National
Committee of the Communist Party, told him that the idea of police review
boards “was invented by the Community Party in the 1930s when it was felt that
the country was ripe for revolution. The idea was to somehow get the police out
from under the control of elected officials and subject the police to the
discipline of a `civilian’ group which the Party could infiltrate and control” –
thereby controlling the police.
Admittedly, the prospect of local police under Communist
control is a horrifying one. In such circumstances, police would be entirely
unaccountable to the public. Police cadres would be allowed to kill 12-year-old
children without consequences, or burn
infants in their cribs in 3:00 a.m. raids, or detain
travelers without cause and seize
their money and property
without due process, or torture
hundreds of people into “confessions” without fear of being punished for doing
so, or execute
harmless mentally ill people in full view of the terrified public…. That is
to say that they would behave more or less the way police do today.
However, the “problem” with “Communist-controlled” police
review boards, according to the SYLP and the police unions whose rhetoric the
committee regurgitates, is not that they would make police more violent and
aggressive, but that they would supposedly make them weaker and less assertive.
“No matter what names are used by the sponsors of the
so-called “Police Review Boards” they exude the obnoxious order of Communism,” groused
a National Fraternal Order of Police newsletter published in the late 1960s.
“This scheme is right out of the Communist handbook which states in part, `…
police are the enemies of Communism, if we are to succeed we must do anything
to weaken their work, to incapacitate them or make them a subject of ridicule.’”
After the
implacable Communists have rendered the police weak and vulnerable, they will
seize control of that vital institution, re-writing its mandate to make it an
instrument that serves the State, rather than the people. Once that subversive
process is completed, the typical police officer would proudly proclaim that he
and his comrades “are bound by our oaths and by our loyalty to the
State and to society to meet force with force, and cunning with cunning… We
have a government worth fighting for, and even worth dying for….”
Oh,
forgive me – that expression of pious reverence toward the State, and willingness
to kill and die in its name, actually came from the pen of Chicago Police Captain
Michael J. Shaack in his overwrought “expose” Anarchy and Anarchists: A
History of the Red Terror. Shaack’s bloated and sensationalistic tome
was perhaps the first effort by American police to cast their critics as
elements of a monolithic, foreign-controlled campaign of revolutionary
subversion.
Shaack’s
book was published in 1889. His arguments are still being credulously retailed at
the end of 2014.
“Unless
you live in a major metropolitan area, and even there this may still be unknown
information to the police commissioner, your local police may not be aware of
the current anti-police activities of the activist Party for Socialism and
Liberation (PSL) and the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP),” contends the
SYLP manual, using language badly in need of a competent copy editor. “Both of
these subversive parties run campaigns and sponsor demonstrations to `Stop
Racist Police Brutality,’ annually on October 22.”
It isn’t made clear to the reader why he or she should be troubled by the activities of two admittedly unsavory political groups whose designs may be immensely evil but whose influence is immeasurably small. The manual recommends that SYLP members keep track of “subversive” and “anti-police” activists and movements in the community, which is something the police themselves supposedly no longer do: “Since the early 1970s, US local police departments no longer have their own independent intelligence departments to keep tabs on or investigate the activities of revolutionary leftist and other subversive organizations.”
Assuming
this were true – and it manifestly is not – why would this be a lamentable development?
Prior
to the early 1970s, “red squads” operated by city police departments collected
intelligence that was shared with the FBI, thereby acting as the eyes and ears
of what could only be described as a de facto national secret police
organization. Hundreds of city police departments also pooled and shared
intelligence through the Law
Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU), a nation-wide network created
in 1956 by then-Los Angeles Police Chief William H. Parker because of a
personal quarrel with FBI Director Hoover.
Like the Federal Reserve, the LEIU was a
public-private partnership: As a “private” company, it was exempt from most
forms of public accountability, yet it received federal
subsidies to carry out its work. A successor
organization using the same acronym exists today, carrying out a nearly
identical mission.
In
addition to providing intelligence on leftist groups, SYLP volunteers are
instructed to help police “differentiate actual reports of domestic terror and
crime from those of leftist propaganda `intelligence reports’ from the Southern
Poverty Law Center … which are filled with vicious attacks on conservative
political organizations, conservative minority leaders, and Christian churches
and leaders … labeling them to be hate groups or promoters of violence.”
The
problem with this recommendation, of course, is that SYLP and SPLC are carrying
out exactly the same mission in the hope of turning the State’s coercive
apparatus against their respective political enemies. In this connection it is
worth noting that the head of the organization that runs the SYLP campaign has
publicly and repeatedly boasted
of his background as a police informant in the early 1960s.
In
terms of numbers, the SYLP campaign is a peer of the miniscule, marginalized
left-wing groups it condemns. Its tropes and truisms, however, do resonate on
the right, and are recited by the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael
Savage, and herd-poisoners of lesser standing. This form of State-centered
collectivism, which
I’ve called Punitive Populism, is enjoying a revival at a time when law
enforcement is facing a severe crisis of legitimacy.
If the
SYLP campaign were devoted to arresting our decline into
unqualified despotism, it would focus on police accountability, rather than “independence.”
Rather
than “educating” police officials about the dangers of the federal largesse
that has expanded their toy box and fattened their budgets, SYLP volunteers
would be barraging state legislatures with demands that the subsidies and arms
transfers end.
Instead
of pretending that “civilian” oversight of the police is a pernicious Communist
plot, the SYLP would agitate for restoration of the grand jury as it existed
before it was turned into a tool of the local prosecutor. Prior to the 1940s it
was commonplace for citizen grand juries to conduct self-initiated
investigations of official abuse and corruption, including outrages committed
by police agencies.
In
place of offering a generic endorsement of “law enforcement,” the SYLP should
champion the cause of individuals who have conducted themselves as peace
officers, rather than law enforcers – particularly those who have defended
citizens from criminal violence from fellow cops.
Ramon
Perez, who refused an unlawful order to Tase a non-violent elderly suspect,
and Regina
Tasca, who interposed herself to protect a mentally troubled young man being
beaten without cause by another officer, would be worthy subjects of a “Support
Your Local Peace Officer” campaign. Both of them were punished, rather than
being promoted, for their principled acts. The
same was true of Adam Basford, who was shot while taking a violent felon
into custody. Out of concern for bystanders, Basford chose the riskier course
of a hands-on arrest rather than drawing his gun. Rather than receiving a
commendation, Basford was cashiered – and then hit with criminal charges for
filing a complaint against a former comrade.
More
recently a still-unnamed 20-year veteran of the campus police at California
State University-Monterey Bay was
fired for de-escalating a confrontation with a suicidal student, rather than
using his Taser.
“It
defies logic and is extremely disappointing that, at a time when law
enforcement is under fire for using more force than necessary, an officer is
being terminated for attempting to use civilized methods to resolve a
situation,” observed
the student’s perplexed – and grateful – father. But this is typical of
contemporary law enforcement priorities. A year ago, PoliceOne.com described
how a police chief tried to punish an officer for disarming a gun-wielding
suspect during an episode of domestic violence.
A police officer is more likely to be punished for refusing to harm or kill a citizen, than for harming of killing one without cause. When
individual police officers are being purged or punished for such acts of
genuine courage, the Support Your Local Police Committee is conspicuously
silent.
The
SYLP’s criticism of “outside influences” on the police doesn’t extend to the
role played by police unions, which are national in scope and allied with other
unions that conservatives generally oppose. Local “independence” and individual
police accountability would be served by the requirement that civil judgments
in cases of police abuse be paid out of
police pension funds, more than a few of which have turned “poor but
honest cops” into tax-subsidized
millionaires. Individual police officers should likewise be required not
only to carry body cameras to record interactions with the public, but also
individual liability insurance for any injuries they inflict upon the innocent.
The
most curious element of the SYLP ideology is the casual – and entirely
unwarranted – assumption that “security” can or should be provided through a
State-operated monopoly. If the objective is to commend and support those who protect
property rights, private security operatives – including much-maligned “mall
cops” – are worthier of praise than government-licensed purveyors of violence
whose mission is to protect the political class that preys on property.
We aren’t
facing the prospect of a revolutionary transformation of law enforcement into a
centrally controlled apparatus of tyranny. We are living with the ripening
consequences of a revolution that happened decades ago. What is needed now is a
counter-revolution that will break up the State’s “security” monopoly. The SYLP
approach is to issue strident warnings about a long-consummated revolution
while protecting the system to which it gave birth.
Click here to download or listen to the most recent Freedom Zealot Podcast.
For updates, follow me on Twitter.
If you can, please donate to help keep Pro Libertate online. Thank you, and God bless!
Dum spiro, pugno!
13 comments:
Will,
You've demonstrated a good example of why I left the JBS. They really aren't interested in liberty or freedom. They're interested in a, for lack of a better way to say it, right-wing tyranny.
They're perfectly OK with the police spying on "the left" and they're OK with a "House Un-American Activities" committee prying into the lives of Americans - so long as those Americans are "on the left" or are so-called "communists". But they're not OK with being spied on themselves or having a government that doesn't conform to their vision of how government should be.
That's why I finally resigned over a decade ago - the JBS doesn't want freedom or liberty. They want power and control - through a government of their choosing.
I continue to appreciate your excellent writing and hope you keep up the good work.
Sounds like the John Birch Society is trying to ride yet another wave.
You might appreciate this insight on the expanding militarization of the USA's police:
http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/12/09/metadata-panorama/
It's merely a thumbnail sketch analysis but touches aspect that need thorough study
If we cant use the ballet box to secure our law
enforcement then what do you say is needed? you require the militia? Or the federal government?
I say you only get what you work for I worked for a good sheriff and good deputies
Elected sheriffs are, in principle, accountable to their constituents. Police chiefs and their subordinates are not. County sheriff's departments, unfortunately, are nearly as federalized as municipal police departments, owing to the "War on Drugs" and the associated federal subsidies.
Many, if not most, of the "constitutional" sheriffs who resolved to resist new gun laws are on the Federal take through drug war subsidies and as partners in "civil asset forfeiture."
It's worthwhile to make this a campaign issue in county sheriff elections.
In any forum (that isn't rabidly pro-liberty) where I post "Abolish Sovereign Immunity", I get vitriolic hate replies about how without an unaccountable elite murdering force people would simply kill each other over table scraps.
There are a whole lot of very unstable people who think that the only reason people cooperate is because government police will kill them if they don't.
Just repealing Sovereign Immunity frightens such people, and as has been said many times, "Do not frighten a small man, he will kill you."
The second amendment is there so that we have the tools necessary to fight the oppressors. The local police departments all over America have become the oppressors. We need to treat them like our ancestors treated the red coats.
Mr. Gregg:
Yep, I'm tired too of hearing about how the police are our friends, our heroes, and they are here to protect and serve us. Then we see stories like the one I'm posting a link to where a cop pulls over someone on their way to the hospital and allows the person to die just a few miles from the hospital in order to follow police protocol rather than put a value on human life. Of course, the police chief supported the cop. Naturally, we're expected to do the same:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wis-man-dies-asthma-cops-stop-car-er-article-1.2031939
I stopped supporting the Support Your Local Police campaign shortly after my suggestion to change their slogan to "Support Your Local Police As Long As They Support The Constitution" was ignored.
There is a strong anti-cop brutality segment living in Canada. Witness some of the comments following a poll taken on the topic of Canuck Cops turning "Power Ranger" on the people who pay them.
The Poll:
http://www.thetyee.ca/Polls/2014/12/08/Police-Brutality-in-Canada/
The Comments:
https://thetyee.wufoo.com/widgets/h1b6hq3p1xrpj2s/
No, I don't support my local hide-behind-the-badge oinkers.
The final photo in this piece is quite telling. If you point that rifle at me, you had damned well better use it because I promise I will be using mine on you once I have retrieved it.
We need to enforce the third amendment and stop quartering the standing armies known as police departments in our society.
Post a Comment